4 ms·

This is how it can go: https://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article2620683.html https://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article2620683...

by g-b-r 3y ago

voakbasda 3y ago
Exactly. The problem is that whistleblower protections come from the government. The courts cannot be trusted to always have your back. Hell, I would go further and outright assume that they will blatantly favor corporate interests. I do not blame someone for not wanting to risk the exposure.
- g-b-r 3y ago
  In this case I'd stress that the FAA itself cannot be assumed to "have your back", given their coziness with Boeing (although I can't know if the whistleblowers were truthful)
ajross 3y ago
To be clear: mainstream major media publications use anonymous sources all the time. The point here is that the whistleblower be talking to the Times or the Post[1] and not "View from the Wing". No one is demanding they come out in public to tell us who they are. [1] And let's also be clear: journalists from both those organizations are surely on the phones full time right now trying to find dirt on Boeing quality processes. That would be a huge story if they could land it.
- g-b-r 3y ago
  Yeah you're not wrong that he should try to talk to a major publication (if the story is true)
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    I didn't realize that the whistleblower might have accessed the records without permission, that could be a good reason to stay anonymous Of course no way to know the truth for now.